Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

OIL: Pipeline presents risks, but no benefits

Letter by David L. Warnick, DuPont on Oct. 4, 2011 at 11:53 am with 14 Comments »
October 4, 2011 2:43 pm

On a cursory perusal, the Viewpoint (TNT, 10-5) by Canadian Consul General Denis Stevens seems to make a passable case for the Keystone XL pipeline. It’s what he doesn’t say that should concern us.

This proposed transnational pipeline, from Canada to Texas, will carry tar sands crude oil, a particularly corrosive crude. The company also proposes to use higher pressures in the pipeline than are presently allowed in the United States, creating a dangerous combination of highly pressurized toxic fluids being pumped all the way across the U.S.

Then there is the fact that there is nothing in this for the U.S. The refineries in Texas have already signed tentative contracts for the products, nearly all of which would be exported. The pipeline will do exactly squat for our gasoline supply. The U.S. gets all the risk of a huge pipeline and none of the benefit, unless you consider higher profits for oil companies to be a national benefit.

Stevens also fails to mention the fact that the project’s primary lobbyist is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager. This might not be quite so significant were it not for the fact that the State Department, headed by Clinton, is the agency that has oversight approval on the project.

Then there is the issue of the oil sands crude itself, production of which is incredibly toxic, poisoning the air and water irremediably. We don’t need this, Canada doesn’t need it and only the oil industry profits, as usual.

Leave a comment Comments → 14
  1. philichi says:

    David, I am sorry that you feel this way. You are why our county has a 9% unemployment rate. Our counrty is swimming in oil and gas. You and I are currenlty paying $4 per gallon. this should be half that.

    We should be building pipe lines in every part of the country. there are over 100 years of gas under Texas alone. We could run our cars and pruduce elctricity. Think of all of the jobs that these pipelines would produce.

    What if the Obama Stimulus package would have built these all over America. At least now we would have something instead of a big debt.

  2. ldozy1234 says:

    Funny how they can figure out how to make a pipeline for crude oil reaching from Canada to Texas but they can’t figure out how to make a pipeline for water to all those areas too. Maybe piping some of the water from overwhelmed states to drought states could be tagged onto this construction as it passes through the US.

  3. “What if the Obama Stimulus package would have built these all over America. At least now we would have something instead of a big debt.”

    Come on be fair. The recent build up in extractable natural gas reserves is still pretty new.

    That being said, some kind of federal program to get natural gas filling stations installed at as many truck stops as is economically feasible seems like a good idea.

  4. concernedtacoma7 says:

    How about the fact that if we don’t take it Canada said they would just sell it to china? Either way the oil sands are going to get used, why not lighten our cash outflow to the middle east

  5. beerBoy says:

    How about the fact that if we don’t take it Canada said they would just sell it to china?

    Who are “we”? Exxon?

  6. harleyrider1 says:

    I would believe you if you walked everywhere you went and did not use anything that contained plastic.

    But you don’t. You are like many others: you feel the need to tell us what we should and should not be doing with our lives and how we should live.

    It’s time for America to make the best use of its own reserves. And what better time when the economy is in need of new jobs and exploration in our own Country.

  7. KARDNOS says:

    “We should be building pipe lines in every part of the country.”

    How about in YOUR backyard?

  8. KARDNOS says:

    “How about the fact that if we don’t take it Canada said they would just sell it to china?”

    Texas is for refinement only. The oil is being exported. As usual…the Kneejerk Right don’t read the story and now they think Michelle Bachmann should be president to lower gas prices to $2.00 a gallon

  9. KARDNOS says:

    Why not refine in North Dakota? It would cost less to build a refinery than 1000s of miles of pipeline that can be destroyed by terrorists and cause a disaster.

  10. BlaineCGarver says:

    Holy Crap…I agree with Kard….Do it at the border and keep the gasoline for us….

  11. Charge the oil companies for the entire cost of the pipeline, including the “lease” of the land rendered useless by the pipeline. Charge a royalty on any of the oil that is refined here and sold overseas.

  12. KARDNOS says:

    beerBoy…..we all know that oil will disappear when it hits the Texas border.

    I wonder if Perry will take credit for the jobs created when all the states combined have to approve the construction that enables Texas to refine the oil.

  13. beerBoy says:

    Just realized why it has to be shipped to Texas – to take advantage of the very lax environmental “protections” that are in place there.

  14. philichi says:

    Yes i would have a pipeline in my backyard. I would also fly in a jet plane. I would also cross the street and play golf without a helmet on.

    There are pipelines everywhere. They aren’t a risk. We just need more of them. We also need to pump more oil. This would give our governemnt more royalty fees, hire more people to build and operate them, and get the price of fuild down.

    Lower fuil prices would stimulate the economy better than Obama’s silly little tax cutt.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0